State v. Zwick, 2014 Ohio 230

Zwick pled no contest to one count of rape of a child under 13; two related counts were dismissed; he was sentenced to 10 years to life and designated a Tier III offender.
Evidence was obtained through two search warrants (Feb. 24, 2012 and Mar. 5, 2012) based on a child exploitation investigation linked to online chats and emails.
Detective Penwell’s online chats with Zwick and related email communications led to seizure of computers, a cell phone, a printer, and memory devices at 3620 Sequoia Drive, Beavercreek, Ohio.
The warrants authorized broad electronic search of hardware and data for offenses including pandering obscenity and illegal use of a minor in nudity oriented material or performance.
Zwick moved to suppress the evidence; the trial court denied, finding probable cause and admissibility under the warrants; he appealed challenging the scope of the warrants.
The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Zwick waived scope arguments and that, on the merits, the seizure fell within the warrants’ scope and plain error did not exist.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the suppression denial proper due to scope of search warrants?	Zwick; scope exceeded by chat logs beyond the warrants.	Zwick; chats outside stated scope should be suppressed.	No reversible error; within scope; no plain error
Did waiver apply to the scope issue and bar appellate review?	State; failure to raise scope issue in trial court waives it.	Zwick; nonetheless, plain error review should apply.	Waiver governs; plain error not shown

Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216 (1988) (waiver allows appellate review only for plain error if not properly raised)
State v. Demus, 192 Ohio App.3d 181 (2011-Ohio-124) (issues raised on suppression must be preserved; plain-error review limited)
State v. Demus, 948 N.E.2d 508 (2d Dist. Ohio) (endorsement of preservation and waiver principles)